States seek longshot shield from feds in SNAP data standoff

The government has filed four lawsuits against states that are currently suing the government in California over demands for SNAP user information.SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A coalition of states suing the government over demands for personal data of food stamp recipients asked a federal judge Friday to block the government from prosecuting similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions.Liam O’Connor of the California Attorney General’s Office told Senior U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney that the government was attempting to relitigate the case the states originally brought last summer in Northern California federal court in at least four other federal courts.“Defendants already have four duplicative actions and have indicated they will file up to 19 more. That’s a minimum of four and up to 23 additional district courts across the country diverting attention from their dockets to consider first-to-file motions, preliminary injunction motions and summary judgment motions,” O’Connor said.O’Connor added that the circumstances on a first-to-file motion would be best served by an injunction from Northern California federal court to “avoid inconsistent rulings and burden on the judiciary.”Chesney was receptive to the plaintiffs’ concerns about the possibility of inconsistent rulings but balked at the idea of interfering in another court’s business.“The thought that if I had a case in front of me and asked to rule on certain things, I wouldn’t want another judge coming in and meddling,” the Bill Clinton appointee said. “I’m just a little bit wary about taking an action that is not absolutely called for.”The judge did not go as far as to issue a ruling from the bench, but said her tentative opinion is to deny the plaintiff states’ motion to enjoin prosecution in other districts. Chesney said her eventual ruling could give more weight to the plaintiffs’ concerns, but she didn’t believe it was her place to tell other federal courts what they can and cannot hear.“If someone really wants to keep that case, why is there another court telling them they can’t do it? It boils down to telling the other courts they can’t hear the case. That’s a pretty extreme position to take,” she said.The judge said she would take the matter under submission and issue a ruling as soon as possible.Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment.A coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia, led by California, filed a lawsuit in June 2025, claiming President Donald Trump is trying to build a database of people’s information to target immigrants. The White House said the information is needed for transparency and to investigate fraud, but the states say the Trump administration is rewriting the rules to punish those who use SNAP.SNAP is funded by the federal government and administered by the states. Billions of dollars flow through the program, which helps participants put food on their tables. Information requested by the government includes Social Security numbers and home addresses for the past five years.On three occasions, Chesney has blocked the government from tying funding to the disclosure of food stamp recipients’ personal information: first with a temporary restraining order in September 2025, then with preliminary injunctions in October 2025 and February.Since then, the government has issued a third data request to the states and referred four of the 23 plaintiff states to the DOJ, filing four separate lawsuits in federal courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.Justice Department attorney Tyler Becker argued that the remedy, demands and action the states seek in the other federal lawsuits are distinct from the suit the states brought in the Northern District of California.Becker also accused the plaintiff states of forum shopping — a claim O’Connor objected to — arguing the government brought cases in jurisdictions where the state agencies that deal with SNAP are located, while all the plaintiff states decided to bring their lawsuit in California.“It would be pretty odd if a court in California could enjoin the prosecution of an action where the agency is,” he said.O’Connor argued that Chesney had already spent a significant time with the case and the parties’ demands could be resolved in a single action in California, rather than 24 separate courts across the country.“There’s no need for other courts to enter the fray at this late stage,” he saidUltimately, Chesney said if she denied the motion to enjoin, the states would still have the opportunity to go to the other courts and let them know about the original action.While courts are typically happy to defer to the court that had the first case to save judicial resources, she said, if a court wanted to take up a similar case, she shouldn’t prevent them from doing so.“If they do have another view, I don’t know if it is for me to tell them they are wrong,” she said.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads